Josenia Ferreyra Santos v. Villalona
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-05253
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ferreyra Santos v. Villalona, Judge Oetken set aside defendants’ default, ordered a compliant answer, and requested plaintiff’s mediation position.
The order affected the defendants by setting aside the entry of default and requiring a compliant answer, and affected the plaintiff by requiring her to state whether she would participate in court-annexed mediation.
What happened
In Mayra Josenia Ferreyra Santos v. Carina Villalona and Mayobanex Villalona, the defendants filed an answer about one month late after difficulties obtaining a lawyer, financial and health issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic. They broadly denied the allegations in the complaint.
The defendants asked the court to set aside the entry of default. They also requested court-ordered mediation. The plaintiff opposed setting aside the default and argued that the defendants’ answer did not meet the required standard for responding to a complaint.
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the motion to set aside the entry of default. He ordered the defendants to file an answer that responds properly to each factual allegation by November 3, 2020, and ordered the plaintiff to tell the court by November 10, 2020, whether she would participate in the court’s mediation program.
The detailed version
- Josenia Ferreyra Santos v. Villalona · No. 1:20-cv-05253
- James Oetken
- Oct. 13, 2020
Background
The defendants filed an answer one month late after an unsuccessful effort to retain counsel and settle the matter. They attributed the delay to difficulties obtaining counsel, financial and health issues, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The answer broadly denied the facts alleged in the complaint, and the defendants filed it without counsel.
Default
Under Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may set aside an entry of default for “good cause.” The court described this as a lenient standard and noted that defaults are generally disfavored, particularly when the case involves factual issues and the default was not willful. The defendants also requested court-ordered mediation.
The court found that the defendants had shown good cause, despite any prejudice to the plaintiff, and granted the defendants’ motion to set aside the entry of default.
Answer and Mediation Directives
The court agreed with the plaintiff that the defendants’ pro se answer was likely insufficient under Rule 8(b). A general denial is proper only when defendants intend in good faith to deny every allegation in the complaint, including the allegations establishing jurisdiction. Otherwise, defendants must respond specifically to each factual statement by admitting it, denying it, or stating that they lack enough information to respond.
The court directed the defendants to file an answer complying with Rule 8(b) by November 3, 2020. The court also directed the plaintiff to file a letter by November 10, 2020, stating whether she was willing to participate in the court-annexed Mediation Program.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.